Who and What Do You Believe

D

drivermaker

Banned
I want to talk about that magical word that brings out so many different opinions... deflection. It doesn't matter what cue you're using, they ALL produce deflection in varying amounts, some less or more than others. You can almost entirely negate it by staying on the vertical center and using follow, draw, and stop with the proper speed to set up the correct angle on your next shot and play top level pool. You can move the ball around anywhere on the table doing that. You can also reduce or negate it my minimizing the amount of english you use or by applying backhand english.

However, there are two schools of thought on deflection that I want to delve into. Bob Jewett, Ph.D. has stated here and elsewhere, that he is of the belief that CB speed or force applied creates no differences in the amount of deflection, assuming the same tip offset. This is corroborated by some of the other scientists that post on various forums that he interacts with.

On the flip side, you have Phil Capelle and a few other writers of books that teach in their writings that speed and force DOES in fact play a role in the amount of deflection. Capelle has some very interesting facts, numbers, diagrams, and spreadsheets which show the amount of deflection for varying tip offsets and forces applied which totally contradicts Mr. Jewett, if I understand Mr. Jewetts stance on this correctly.

Personally, I've let my cuestick and CB tell me what to believe, and from my observations and 45 years of hardcore experience I am of the Phil Capelle beliefs. So, who and what do you believe?
 
I Agree With Jewett, Kind of ....

I've got a large library of experience, having played pool since 1969, but, sadly, thirty five years around the game hasn't made the defelection topic clear to me. From a purely scientific standpoint, Jewett seems right. The vector of deflection should not be a function of speed. For you and me, and others not having a sufficient command of the physical sciences, though, we've only got experience to judge the case, and our intuitive sense of things to guide us.

I think that Jewett is right for cues that have very stiff shafts, but I play with a fairly whippy cue. As speed changes seem to alter the amount my shaft will bend during a shot, I believe, like you and Phil Cappelle, that extra speed can affect deflection, though I can't say whether or not the affect is appreciable.

Still, stiff shafts are the rule these days, so, in practice, the nod probably goes to Jewett and his scientific advocates.
 
All I know is that if I punch hard at the cue ball, I MUST allow for more deflection. A soft stroke does not require the same allowance. Are you sure you are not comparing apples and oranges (are you sure PC and BJ are describing the same thing)? I thought it was widely accepted that a harder stroke must cause more lateral deflection. Perhaps BJ will weigh in on the matter.
 
Williebetmore said:
All I know is that if I punch hard at the cue ball, I MUST allow for more deflection. A soft stroke does not require the same allowance. Are you sure you are not comparing apples and oranges (are you sure PC and BJ are describing the same thing)? I thought it was widely accepted that a harder stroke must cause more lateral deflection. Perhaps BJ will weigh in on the matter.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure...I don't think I'm wrong about where he stands. Could be though. I'm extremely proud of you though for not believing all that you read in the physics books.
 
deflection

Driver,

Each of us, has his own opinion about deflection, cue ball speed, and so on.

Example!
We can set up the same shot for you, me and several others, all of us using the same cue. The results about deflection will be differant with each of us. We approach the ball differantly, hold the cue differantly, and so on.

Keeping this in mind, there findings mean nothing to us, if you stop and think about it. Nothing at all. That's because we all have differant strokes, stance, and movements.

If all these folks were correct, [impossible], in there findings, and we made adjustments, according to them, will it or would it, make us play better or worse?

Each of us will still address the ball the same way we've done for years. We will still "adjust" to the cue were playing with after a few shots. That's an automatic happening..

We all, automaticly adjust to conditions, table, balls, humidity, cues, and whatevers.

With that in mind, what good are there findings and what purpose do they serve?

Will it make a differance in how we play? I don't think so.

If possible, someone please explain to me how there experiments and findings would make any of us play better.

Please, I don't want a fuss, just want to know what good is there findings?

thank you
blud
 
I personally couldn't care less about the subject of deflection and who is right and who is wrong. I know one thing, when I am playing deflection is something I never think about.
 
tap

ChalksBilliards said:
I personally couldn't care less about the subject of deflection and who is right and who is wrong. I know one thing, when I am playing deflection is something I never think about.
Click to expand...

you bet.
blud
 
Deflection and Speed test

Speed may have an influence on the amount of deflection as PC has described in his books.

Knowing your degree of compensation, shot speed and (what I think is the most important aspect) the "Length" of distance between the cue ball and object ball, all (IMO) contribute to the amount of Deflection.

The example below has helped me understand more about my game, maybe it will help someone else.

The shot below is "Straight IN" nothing fancy, just try this and see for yourself. I should mention that your aim would be the same as it would be for a center axis cue ball hit. No back hand english adjustments, no compensation needed.

Mark the places on the table for the OB and CB and repeat the shot with various speeds and use lots of left or right side spin. The distance between the OB and CB is just a little more than 1 and 1/2 diamonds.

I found that stun speed works best, for this example. If hit with stun speed the cue ball should hit the OB and drive it dead center into the side pocket and the cue ball will just sit there spining. Just like a 'stop shot' should.

If you are stroking with an parallel cue, this should be repeatable.

I've done this with a whippy Meucci, X-Shaft, Preadator and even a house cue. The cue ball reacted the same way when hit with stun speed. The cue ball just sits there and spins. NO left or right drift.

Increase the distance, slow the shot speed, speed it up and you will not be able to get it to sit and spin. Deflection (or squirt) will happen.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html

START(
%A[4L0%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%IL7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%P[6U7%][5M9%^[6T8%eC2a4
)END
 
Last edited:
drivermaker said:
I'm pretty sure...I don't think I'm wrong about where he stands. Could be though. I'm extremely proud of you though for not believing all that you read in the physics books.
Click to expand...

When it comes to scientific explanations of pool based on physics the people doing the study never factor in all the variables that actually affect the game. If speed matters in increasing the amount of deflection (as I believe it does through personal experiance and shooting thousands of shots) then this does not mean pool is beyond the ability of physics to explain, it just means noone has done it right yet or taken account of all the factors.
 
I do adjust for deflection when changing shafts. I've noticed that one of my shafts has less deflection than the other. But then again, fact is it exists... it's how we deal with it that makes the difference...

Just play...
 
Williebetmore said:
All I know is that if I punch hard at the cue ball, I MUST allow for more deflection. A soft stroke does not require the same allowance. Are you sure you are not comparing apples and oranges (are you sure PC and BJ are describing the same thing)? I thought it was widely accepted that a harder stroke must cause more lateral deflection. Perhaps BJ will weigh in on the matter.
Click to expand...


Willie...Jewett said, "I think that warp speed is not a factor, since I believe that squirt angle is NOT AFFECTED BY SPEED. You can find this at:
www.azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=4501&page=1

Or you can also google RSB and do an advanced search on "deflection" and find a thesis (literally) on the subject which verifies that. Again, I do not believe this.
 
blud said:
Driver,

Each of us, has his own opinion about deflection, cue ball speed, and so on.

Example!
We can set up the same shot for you, me and several others, all of us using the same cue. The results about deflection will be differant with each of us. We approach the ball differantly, hold the cue differantly, and so on.

Keeping this in mind, there findings mean nothing to us, if you stop and think about it. Nothing at all. That's because we all have differant strokes, stance, and movements.

If all these folks were correct, [impossible], in there findings, and we made adjustments, according to them, will it or would it, make us play better or worse?

Each of us will still address the ball the same way we've done for years. We will still "adjust" to the cue were playing with after a few shots. That's an automatic happening..

We all, automaticly adjust to conditions, table, balls, humidity, cues, and whatevers.

With that in mind, what good are there findings and what purpose do they serve?

Will it make a differance in how we play? I don't think so.

If possible, someone please explain to me how there experiments and findings would make any of us play better.

Please, I don't want a fuss, just want to know what good is there findings?

thank you
blud
Click to expand...


Your post has proven a fact about something...we can agree. For the most part, I come exactly from your point of view and could give a rat's ass about what all of the different writers say in their books. All I know and care about is what it takes for me to knock balls into a pocket and for over 40 years I've been able to do it REAL good, as I understand you were also able to do.
However, it's only been within the last 3 or so years that I started getting interested in books and tapes and seeing all of the different theories and teachings and how they apply to my game and whether I've been doing it correctly or not. Plus, you can always teach an old dog new tricks and I'm willing to learn. But I see discrepencies everywhere. And this new group of people coming up and learning the game are learning from these books and I think that in many cases they're getting fed a load of crap, and I think this is one of them. I could care less what Jewett says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top